Excellent, K, but understanding the big picture requires more than just an enumeration of parts, cute and smart as it otherwise is.

For instance, Structure can stand all by itself. It need not just be part of the whole.

The big picture is based on understanding structure, the mechanics how it is possible to end up with matter, some 13.8 billion years ago.

Immediately, we must then also ask the question how matter could have stayed matter and not quickly return to what the prior state was.

From this, we can see that breakage/damage is the most logical answer. With breakage, we need not establish a reason why matter remained matter and not returned right away to what it was prior. Damage tells it all.

The broken toy, as an example, has all the parts still present. Nothing of the toy was lost when it broke. And yet the special function the toy was capable of performing is now gone forever.

Matter can then be seen as the broken parts of the toy, not returning to one whole, and having lost a function forever.

The other part that needs to be understood is why there was no matter before, and only after the breakage.

From this, we can see that the breakage occurred at an extremely refined level.

The quarks that form the neutrons and protons are tiny, tiny. That is the level of the breakage. Nuetrons and protons are found in the center of atoms. They are the ones that are basically immobile, stuck in place.

With the positive charge of the protons, the remainder of original energy ended up providing the negative electrons to neutralize that charge.

So, we see mobility versus immobility already at the subatomic level.

The breakage that occurred 13.8 billion years ago was ‘just’ a ‘localized’ event. Much of the original energy is still in their original state, undamaged, not-materialized.

Follow the details, K, and the story unfolds itself. Matter is already telling us the story (but most physicists are not looking for stories, they are ‘just’ looking for data).

Desiring more? Here is my latest article on the Big Bang model not using the correct model. Yes, structural thinking is how we can find more answers.

Thank you for your reply, K. I appreciate it; you are smart.

https://medium.com/@fred-rick/the-big-bang-theory-does-not-agree-with-model-3-d8446ab1699f